Before
Beckwith and Easterly, Associate Judges, and Steadman, Senior
Judge.

Beckwith, Associate Judge

Appellant
A.C., the mother of minor child A.C.W., sought and obtained a
temporary order suspending custody and barring all visitation
by appellee N.W., the child's father, pending a police
investigation into an allegation that N.W. had sexually
abused the child. When the investigation ended without
prosecution, N.W. filed a motion to vacate the temporary
custody order, and after a four-day evidentiary hearing, the
trial court granted it, with the important proviso that all
visits between N.W. and A.C.W. would be supervised. A.C. now
appeals the trial court's vacatur of the temporary
custody order, claiming that the trial court erred in placing
the burden of proof on her rather than on N.W., arbitrarily
disregarded expert testimony presented at the hearing, and
failed to make sufficient findings. Although we reject the
first two claims, we agree that the trial court's
findings of fact were insufficient. Because, however, the
evidence presented would have justified the trial court's
ultimate conclusion that the temporary order should be
vacated, we do not reverse but instead remand the record so
that the court can clarify the factual basis for its
determination.

I.

Appellant
A.C. and appellee N.W. are the mother and father,
respectively, of A.C.W., a girl born in February 2010,
shortly after A.C. and N.W. divorced. A.C. and N.W. resolved,
through a consent order entered in January 2012, that they
would share legal and physical custody. Pursuant to the
consent order, A.C.W. resided with A.C., and N.W. had
visitation every other weekend and at certain other specified
times.

A. Temporary Custody Order

In
March 2015, A.C. filed a pro se emergency motion stating that
N.W. was "under investigation for child abuse" and
requesting that N.W.'s "[v]isitation [with A.C.W.]
be suspended until the investigation of child abuse is
concluded." In an ex parte hearing before Associate
Judge Robert Rigsby, A.C. testified that A.C.W. was
"suffering sexual abuse by" N.W. and that A.C.W.
had "show[n] and verbalized . . . what was
happening." A.C. testified that there was a
"detective in Virginia" investigating N.W. and that
the detective had recommended filing an emergency motion to
suspend visitation "for [A.C.W.'s] safety until [the
police] conclude" the investigation. Judge Rigsby
granted A.C.'s motion, reasoning that in light of
A.C.'s "allegations of sexual abuse under sworn
testimony, " it was "in the best interest for
temporary sole legal and physical custody to be awarded to
mom with no visitation to dad." Judge Rigsby stressed
that the order was "temporary" and scheduled a
status hearing for the following month.

B.
Motion To Vacate

N.W.
filed a motion to vacate the temporary custody order in June
2015, after the police investigation closed without
prosecution. Judge Rigsby presided over a four-day hearing,
in which both parties offered testimony and other
evidence.[1]

N.W.
called a single witness in support of his motion to vacate,
Detective Michael Hengemuhle of the Fairfax County Police
Department (FCPD). Detective Hengemuhle had supervised the
FCPD's investigation into N.W.'s alleged sexual abuse
of A.C.W. He testified that after conducting "a medical
examination of the minor child and DNA testing, as well as
interviews with [A.C.], [A.C.'s] family, [N.W.], and
[N.W.'s] family, " the FCPD had informed N.W.
"that no criminal charges would be filed."

In her
case in opposition to N.W.'s motion, A.C. called Jessica
Lopez, A.C.W.'s therapist at Safe Shores, the
District's Children's Advocacy Center, [2] to testify as an
expert in "clinical mental health."[3] A.C. represented
that she was not proffering Ms. Lopez as an expert in
"child sexual abuse." Ms. Lopez testified about the
"typical trauma responses" that she believed A.C.W.
had exhibited and explained the "trauma-focused
cognitive behavioral therapy" that she had been using to
treat A.C.W. She also testified about statements that A.C.W.
had allegedly made, including A.C.W.'s early statements
that N.W. "kisse[d] [her] on the lips and [that she]
d[id]n't like that" and that N.W. is a "dragon
with fire" who had "hurt" her, and her later
statement (after several months of weekly therapy) that N.W.
had "put his snake in [her] pilu-pilu and [that she had]
felt dirty."[4] Ms. Lopez opposed any resumption in
visitation between N.W. and A.C.W. because she thought it
would be "very detrimental to [A.C.W.'s] therapy and
her progress."

A.C.
also testified.[5] She testified that A.C.W. had first
indicated that she had been sexually abused on March 2, 2015,
a day after A.C.W.'s final visit with N.W. A.C. stated
that A.C.W. indicated that N.W. had "kissed her on her
private part."[6]A.C. took A.C.W. to her pediatrician a week
later, but it was not until a couple of weeks after that that
A.C.W. had a full sexual-abuse examination.[7] A.C. testified
that although she had given A.C.W. baths on the nights after
A.C.W.'s final visits with N.W., she had not noticed any
bruising, bleeding, or other injuries. A.C. testified that
she believed that the therapy with Ms. Lopez had helped
A.C.W. but that A.C.W. was "still racked with fear"
and was exhibiting "advanced sexual behavior."

N.W.
testified in rebuttal. He denied that he had ever abused
A.C.W. N.W. testified that he had had only four overnight
visits with A.C.W. in her entire life and that because he
lived in New York City and did not have a local residence, he
would typically spend his weekend visits with A.C.W. at his
sisters' home in Virginia or at museums. N.W. also
testified that shortly after A.C.W. was born, A.C. told him
that she wanted sole custody and that if he "sought
joint custody[, ] . . . she was going to accuse [him] of
abuse." N.W. asserted that A.C. had in the past made
false allegations that he had abused her and A.C.W. and that
they had been determined by the relevant authorities to be
unfounded.

C.
Judge Rigsby's Order Granting the Motion To
Vacate

Several
months after the end of the hearing, Judge Rigsby issued an
order granting N.W.'s motion to vacate-the order at issue
in this appeal. He summarized much of the hearing evidence
but did not make any findings as to whether the abuse
occurred or whether A.C.W. would be harmed by resumption in
visitation. The judge then set forth the relevant legal
principles, including, significantly, that in the absence of
a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a parent
has committed an intrafamily offense, there is a presumption
that joint custody is in the best interest of the child, and
that a parent seeking a modification of a custody award is
required to prove a substantial and material change in
circumstances. See D.C. Code § 16-914 (a)(2),
(f)(1) (2012 Repl.).[8] In light of these principles, Judge Rigsby
"f[ound] that [A.C.] ha[d] not met her burden." He
therefore vacated the temporary custody order but required
that future visitation between N.W. and A.C.W. should be
supervised.[9] Associate Judge Robert Okun, who took over
the case when Judge Rigsby rotated out of the Domestic
Relations Branch, stayed Judge Rigsby's order vacating
the temporary custody order, pending this appeal.

A.C.
asserts three claims of error. First, A.C. claims that the
trial court misallocated the burden of proof and failed to
apply the rebuttable presumption that it is against the best
interest of the child for a perpetrator of an intrafamily
offense to have custody. Second, A.C. claims that the trial
court arbitrarily disregarded Ms. Lopez's expert
testimony. Third, A.C. claims that the trial court made
insufficient findings of fact to support its order vacating
the temporary custody order.[10] We address these claims in
turn.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A.
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.